I absolutely believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place, Adam and Eve were two real people, and even though there are some language issues to deal with, the story related is real and vital, and the time frame geologically recent, i.e., 6,000 (Ussher) to 10,000 (Whitcomb, if the genealogies skip some generations) years ago.
Where was the Garden located?
Most commentators seem to favor one of two general regions for the Garden: either northern or southern Mesopotamia, though proposals exist for locations surrounding the Arabian subcontinent and in eastern Africa. I’ve seen one suggestion that Eden lies at the bottom of the Red Sea, and another that puts it in the Indian Ocean.
Some proposed locations for Eden, per Babylon Rising.
Northern Mesopotamian versions tend to favor Eastern Turkey/Armenia, since (a) there is a perception that Shinar is in that area, based on Genesis 11:2 (ESV): “And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there”; and (b) the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate in that general vicinity.
Possible Mesopotamian locations, per Blue Letter Bible.
Personally, I have favored a southern Iraq location for years, since obtaining a copy of an unpublished book titled, simply, Eden, by a late pastor named David J. Gibson, who understood that rivers don’t divide flowing downstream as described in Genesis 2:10 (ESV), “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.” Gibson suggested, and I agree with him, that this verse should be interpreted from the perspective of an observer within the Garden gazing out at four rivers converging as they entered the Garden.
This is awkward language for us, but not necessarily for Moses in antiquity, writing in Hebrew. Consider that in Genesis 2:8 (ESV), “the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east”. This implies to me that the four rivers converged in the western part of Eden before flowing through the Garden, which was planted in the eastern part.
This makes sense, and from a hydrodynamics standpoint, it is the only interpretation that makes sense. Tributaries converge, they don’t diverge. If, for some reason, a river splits to flow around an obstruction or a sandbar, it will always come back together downstream nearby. If, for some reason, it splits to flow down two or more separate drainage basins, an unstable pattern results. One path will erode more quickly than the other(s), and eventually that path will “steal” all the flow from the other(s).
The only exception from that rule is the case of delta flow, but deltas aren’t formed by erosion, they’re formed by deposition of silt carried downstream in the water. As a river flows onto a plain and slows down, turbulence decreases, and silt falls out of suspension and stays more or less where it drops. Without sufficient turbulence to pick it up again, there is just enough energy available to keep the channels open.
Large deltas usually form at the mouth of a river where water leaving the delta’s channels flows into the sea or a lake. Sometimes deltas form inland, usually where a mountain stream empties onto a plain. The water from an inland delta will either evaporate, sink into the substrate, or collect into a single stream or a lake. Two examples are shown below.
The Inner Niger Delta, in Mali, is a wetland that floods during the rainy season in the Guinean Highlands, to the southwest. The delta formed where the topography flattens for 250 miles before spilling downwards again to the east.The Okavango Delta is formed by seasonal flooding form the Angola Highlands, where the Okavango River course flattens and slows in Botswana. Unlike the Inner Niger, this delta has no outlet.Pishon ? The deltaic terminal of Wadi Al-Batin. From Ali Al-Dousari on Researchgate
Genesis 2:10 would make total sense if the four “rivers” were delta channels, but the naming of those four rivers in verses 11–14 belies that possibility. Indeed, in my opinion the naming of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers conclusively fixes the location of the Garden in southern Iraq.
What about the other two rivers named?
The Pishon is fairly well defined because verse 11 says that it “flowed around the whole land of Havilah.” Havilah was a son of Cush who settled in what today is northwest Arabia. 1 Samuel 15:7 (ESV) defines that location: “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt.” “Flowed around” could be literal (I found a map showing the Pishon as an ocean current flowing counterclockwise around the entire Arabian subcontinent), but more likely it simply means that it flowed through and provided water for Havilah. Gibson equated the Pishon with Arabia’s Wadi Al-Batin, an ancient and now-dry river and delta system flowing northeast through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the Tigris/Euphrates valley. I think he was right.
Gihon? Karun River, Wikipedia
As for the Gihon River that “flowed around the whole land of Cush” (verse 13), I would equate that with the Karun River, flowing out of Iran, through the ancient land of the Elamites.
I think that Christian commentators are thrown off by an assumption that “Cush” refers only to the region around Ethiopia and Somalia. My view is that Cush (a son of Ham) and his descendants settled large regions of Asia, as well as the upper Nile area. They apparently mixed with the Canaanites in the Lavant, and Nimrod, a son of Cush, was described in Genesis 10 as “9a mighty hunter before ADONAI. … 10His kingdom began with Bavel, Erekh, Akkad and Kalneh, in the land of Shin‘ar.” These abodes of Nimrod are all lands of southern Mesopotamia. Nimrod was, I’m convinced, none other than Sargon of Akkad, the world’s first great emperor. Elam and Asshur were Semites, but Cush may have extended into the Steppes alongside Shem (see Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe, 2023, by Douglas Petrovich).
It’s admittedly a stretch, but I have wondered if perhaps the ancient Kushan Empire, spanning the central Asian “stans” might have gotten its name from Cush/Kush. If so, then the influence of Cush stretched all the way to the Xiongnu tribe, north of the Yellow River, because the peoples who started the Kushan Empire, centered around Afghanistan, where refugees from the Xiongnu.
Putting all this together, I think that the following map states the case for Eden in southern Iraq:
What about the placing of Shinar in Turkey? I agree with the predominant view that Shinar is the area once occupied by Sumer, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It’s not hard to explain away migration “from the east.” I suspect that waters from the Great Flood took years to retreat from low-lying areas, so descendants of Noah returning to their homeland in Shinar would have initially moved southeast along the spine of the Zagros Mountains. Saying that Shinar is west of Ararat because they entered from the east is analogous to assuming I live west of my church because I (sometimes) approach it from the west. The full story on that is that I live to the southeast and occasionally take a circuitous route along the freeway.
Post-flood migrations from Ararat to Shinar. From Google Earth. Annotations by Ron Thompson.
As an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), Young Earth Creationists (YEC) have frequently asked me about, or scolded me over, the question, “Doesn’t your theology presuppose the unbiblical idea of death before the Fall?”
My response is that, yes indeed, an old earth (4.5 billion years old) and an older universe (13.8 billion years old) does in fact imply that there was life and death on earth long before the creation of Adam, and his subsequent fall.
I will try here to refute the claim that death before the fall is “unbiblical” and to support my opinion that death was an intended part of God’s design that did not begin with Adam’s sin.
Unknown artist’s conception of Hades as described by the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. I presume that’s the Rich Man walking alone on the left bank of the chasm, while Lazarus is off lounging somewhere in Abraham’s Bosom, on the right bank. Remember that this is a parable, so you aren’t expected to take the vision of Hades’ layout or structure too literally.
Introduction
If you subscribe to a YEC interpretation of Scripture (and most of my friends do), then you should believe that all life, human, animal, vegetable, fungi, single-celled and microbial, was created some 6,000 years ago, over a span of only days. Is it conceivable, in that case, that the Fall took place soon enough after creation that no living thing got eaten, stepped on, or fell off a cliff? Was life physically indestructible, as well as immune from natural death? Life is far more complicated than that, but to Henry Morris and his disciples, the question is moot, because to them the Bible prohibits even the possibility of any kind of death before the Fall.
In this post, after first presenting some background and grammar, I’m going to comment on a few of the key YEC arguments for and against pre-fall immortality.
Background and grammar
Life
Not all YEC scholars think that a denial of physical death before the fall applied to plants and microbes, or anything else with no brain. I’m not aware of any scripture that grants this exemption, unless it is implicit from,
29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. — Genesis 1:29-30 (ESV)
Some say that only vertibrate animals were exempt from death. Where is that written?
Some say that anything without blood was never “alive”, in a Biblical sense, because “the life of the flesh is in the blood…” But that isn’t meant to define what “life” is or is not, it’s merely the stated reason that God views the consumption of blood as abominable. There is unfortunately a huge tendency for hyper-literalists (those who won’t let the Bible use figurative language or poetic exaggeration to prove a point) to read theology into every word of every verse, without regard to context.
Far from looking for exemptions, Morris even taught that entropy could not have increased before the fall. Morris was not a scientist and never had a full grasp of what entropy even means until later in his life.
Entropy is a fundamental thermodynamic property of the physical universe. Formally, it is a statistical measure of the number of mathematical “degrees of freedom” in any physical system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe always increases.
Entropy is often described to novices as “a measure of randomness”, but that is misleading. A common claim is that “shuffling a pack of cards increases its entropy because of the increased randomness of the shuffled deck but sorting it back into its original order decreases its entropy since its randomness is lower.” That isn’t at all true! The increase of entropy is due to the energy expended in shuffling. Reordering requires another expenditure of energy, say from a person or a machine, thus further increasing entropy. The entropy of 52 cards at rest is the same whether they are in an ordered or a shuffled state.
If Morris was right about entropy, cells could not divide, food could not digest, muscles could not contract, balls could not roll downhill and, oh yes, the sun could not shine, and gravity could not work. If so, then after the Fall, God must have completely redesigned the laws of physics, plus the nature of every last object in the universe, from subatomic particles on up to spacetime itself.
But the text of Scripture doesn’t, to my knowledge, hand out exemptions, so who gets to say that any human or nonhuman life was exempt from death? To my way of thinking, it is arbitrary and presumptuous for us mortals to “exempt” anything that is cellular and reproduces in a biological sense or to include anything else. Life is life!
death
For this discussion, we have to be more precise when we talk about “death.” That concept, as used in the Bible, can mean different things in different contexts:
Everybody on earth recognizes that anything post-Fall that has physical, tangible, cellular life will ultimately suffer a “physical death,” that is, a termination of all self-powered physical processes. After that, external processes take over to break down the physical components of that once-living carcass and “return it to the dust.”
Most contemporary Christian scholars also recognize that the Bible frequently talks about an analogous “spiritual death,” which Thayer describes as “the misery of soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body”; “the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell”; and “all the miseries arising from sin.”
Paul also defined death as voluntarily putting away, or killing, the evil inclinations of all humankind. See my recent Yetzer, Yotzer and “The Law” in Romans 7:1–6 for a detailed discussion of this usage.
While “death as separation” is not a highly developed Biblical concept, per se, it is functionally an apt description: separation of the body and spirit; separation of the eternal spirit from God; and separation of man from his own nature, respectively.
Death in antiquity
Human beings have an innate curiosity about their origins, both individually and culturally, and I think that this curiosity is at its strongest when communities are more isolated and less technologically distracted. In prehistoric times—that is, before the development of writing—history was very efficiently retained and spread verbally, both within families and cross-culturally by traveling storytellers. It should come as no surprise that all the ancient civilizations, with their common origins in Babel, would share common “legends” about their pasts and common beliefs about the unseen.
From Greece to Egypt and all across the Fertile Crescent, way over to India and China, and across the pond in the Americas, every culture that left records in early history shared one cosmology and one belief in the afterlife, differing only in small regional details.
I’ve shared several versions of the universal flat earth model of cosmology in earlier posts. Here I’ll add the Greek view, which is very similar to the others.
Ancient Greek cosmological diagram.
In all cases, the earth is depicted as a flat disk floating on a broad ocean and covered by a dome (the “firmament” in KJV). Beneath the surface of the disk is the underworld, Hades, the abode of the (physically) dead.
As I’ll show in the following two sections, both Hebrew and Greek have terms that refer to death and the remains of the physically dead, but neither language has any term that differentiates between physical and spiritual death. Though “death” can refer to either, only the context can indicate which is being discussed. Unfortunately, very often the context alone is insufficient for total clarity.
Why would that even be?!
I would suggest that, aside from corruptions in the retelling, all early civilizations shared the assumption that physical life was only one phase of personal existence.
Human life on earth is short. Adam’s descendants in the period between the Garden and the Flood lived long lives, as recorded in the Bible, but most cultures in the ancient world had life expectancies of no more than a few decades. Physical death was no shock. It was pretty much universally believed that when a human died, his spirit survived and was relegated to the underworld. The Bible calls that underworld Sh’ol, or Sheol, in Hebrew, Hades in Greek.
Physical death, in other words, was little more than the shedding of a mortal shell not needed by the immortal spirit as it moved into its new abode in the underworld.
There was no concept of death or annihilation of the spirit in the underworld until much later. In fact, there apparently was no real concept of suffering spirits, either. Even in the Old Testament, where the Psalmist said, “The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, all the nations that forget God” (9:17) and “Let me not be put to shame, Lord, for I have cried out to you; but let the wicked be put to shame and be silent in the realm of the dead” (31:17), the sense is, “I’m righteous, so let me live, because when I die, I’ll be relegated to the drab and boring underworld.”
The picture of Sheol/Hades presented in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus appears nowhere in the Old Testament. That is a view apparently developed in Second Temple Judaism and propagated in Jewish pseudepigraphal works like The Apocalypse of Zephania and 1 Enoch. In telling this parable, Jesus was using a well-known popular concept to illustrate His teaching.
Death in Hebrew
Biblical Hebrew has several words that are used extensively with respect to death:
פֶגֶר (peger, pronounced peh’-ger) is a noun referring to a corpse, carcass, or dead body, human or animal. It was also used figuratively on occasion to refer to idols.
מוּת (muwth, pronounced mooth) is a verb meaning to die, to kill, or to be dead. The subject could be human, animal, vegetable, or even a nation. It can refer metaphorically to the death of some characteristic, e.g., the death of courage. Manner of death could be natural causes or violence. It could also refer to a death judgement, or to an agent of death.
מָוֶת (maveth, pronounced MAH-veth) is a noun, closely related to muwth, that means death, the dead, the place of the dead or state of being dead, or sometimes pestilence or ruin. Rarely, it can be used metaphorically to indicate spiritual death or separation from God, as perhaps in Hosea 13:14, or divine judgement, as in Ezekiel 18:4.
נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh, pronounced neh’-fesh) is a noun, often translated as soul, but primarily meaning any living and breathing creature, human or animal. It also refers to many of the characteristics of life, including life itself, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, or emotion. To lose one’s nephesh is to die, after which the peger, or remains, decay, while the nephesh (now a disembodied spirit) lives on in Sheol, “the grave”, meaning the underworld.
Note that in the Hebrew Scriptures, there is almost no development of the idea of spiritual death, or of divine retribution in the afterlife.
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. — Ecclesiastes 9:10 (ESV) emphasis mine
Death in Greek
There are many similarities, but also significant differences in the Biblical Greek vocabulary of death:
σῶμα (sóma, pronouncedSO-mah) is a noun meaning body or flesh. Unlike the Hebrew peger, this word speaks of a body that can be either living or dead, or in some cases metaphorically, of the body of the Church, or the visible aspect of a disembodied spirit, e.g., an angel.
θάνατος (thanatos, pronounced THAH-nah-tos), like the Hebrew maveth, is a noun meaning death. Unlike maveth, where the figurative sense of “spiritual death” is rare, that concept is well developed in the 1st century AD. In biblical Greek, the figurative meaning is present at least as often as the literal. Unfortunately, only the context can reveal which meaning is in play, and even then, it is sometimes not clear.
As a foil for thanatos, I’ll include here its opposite, ζωή (zóé, pronounced dzo-ay’), a noun meaning life. Interestingly, thanatos is a masculine noun, while zóé if feminine. I’ll not suggest any significance to that fact.
νεκρός (nekros, pronounced nek-ros’) is an adjective meaning dead, deceased, or corpse-like. Like thanatos, the New Testament often uses it to refer to spiritual death. Once again, only the context can determine which meaning to attach.
νεκρόω (nekroó, pronounced (nek-ro’-o) is a verb form of νεκρός meaning to put to death, or render powerless or ineffective.
ἀποθνῄσκω (apothnéskó, pronounced ä-po-thnā’-skō) is a verb meaning to die, to lie dying, or to be killed. Similar to Hebrew muwth, but once again, in the NT it often has a strong spiritual, rather than literal, connotation.
κρίμα (krima, pronounced KREE-mah) is a noun meaning a condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, or sentence.
κατάκριμα (katakrima, pronounced kä-tä’-krē-mä) is a noun meaning punishment following condemnation, penal servitude, penalty. Quoting from Bible Hub’s Topical Lexicon: “The word κατάκριμα is used in the New Testament to describe the state of being under condemnation, particularly in a spiritual or moral sense. It is often associated with the consequences of sin and the judgment that follows.”
Romans 5:12, “death by sin”
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — Romans 5:12 (ESV)
To most YECs, Romans 5:12 is the definitive last word on the subject, because it seems to clearly state that no death of any kind, to any created life form (subject to possible exemptions discussed above), was possible before Adam sinned.
But is that so?
“Proof-texting”, i.e., casually picking one verse out of Scripture to prove a theological point of view, is always risky because no single verse, in a vacuum, is likely to reflect the writer’s complete thoughts on the subject of the verse, or on the circumstances under which he is writing. Other factors almost always need to be considered, such as:
The grammar, genre, and figures of speech.
The issue or issues that prompted the writing.
The textual, historical, and cultural context.
The identity and background of the writer.
The identity and background of the original readers.
The grammar of 5:17 tells us that Paul is combining two thoughts:
Adam’s sin introduced sin and death (thanatos) into the world.
All humans sin, so all humans die.
These two thoughts are conjoined by the Greek phrase kai houtōs, but it is unclear how that should be translated. A quick survey of translations yields “and so”, “in this way”, “this is why”, “and thus”, and the New Century Version (NCV) even puts the second thought into a new sentence. “This is why everyone must die—because everyone sinned.”
Whichever one of those translations you go with, without more context there is a logical disconnect between the two halves of the verse. YECs use Thought 1 to prove that Adam’s sin introduced both physical and spiritual death into the world. Yet they would agree that Thought 2 says that humans die individually because they sin individually. Do animals not die individually because they sin individually?
The Serpent of Genesis 3 sinned, but that was Satan, not a common Garden of Eden Snake. Balaam’s donkey spoke sinful words (Numbers 22:28), but that was spiritual ventriloquism (“The LORD opened [its] mouth”). In Luke 8. 26–39, Jesus was speaking with demons, not with pigs.
I think we can agree that animals aren’t capable of sin, and neither are they subject to spiritual death. Therefore, animals probably have nothing to do with Thought 2 in Paul’s teaching. Given the multiple shades of meaning in thanatos (or the English, “death”) are we as Biblical literalists required to read all possible definitions into that one word here? Not unless we can find something in the context to back it up.
As a matter of fact, the subject in Romans 8, and in fact, the theme of the first 8 chapters, is salvation by faith in the Messiah, for both Jew and gentile. He brings up Adam for two reasons: First, because Jesus provided the means of undoing what the sin of Adam did to humanity; and second, because unlike Abraham, Adam is the father of both Jew and gentile. (Note that the overall theme of the Epistle to the Romans is Paul’s call for unity between Jews and gentiles in the Roman churches.) Among other verses in chapter 8, the following two provide all the explanation needed to understand 5:12:
18 So then, through the transgression of one, condemnation came to all men; likewise, through the righteousness of one came righteousness of life to all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man, many will be set right forever. — Romans 5:18-19 (TLV)
There is nothing at all in that message that applies to animals (or pre-Adamic hominids if you believe in them). Animals are explicitly mentioned only once in all of Romans:
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. — Romans 1:22-23 (ESV)
We’ll approach an understanding of whether Romans 5:12 is speaking of physical death, spiritual death, or a combination of the two in this section. Because the language alone can’t answer that question, we’ll look primarily to the context of Paul’s letter, particularly chapters 1–8, concentrating on chapters 5–8. In the process, we’ll also strengthen our case for human-only death being in view.
The Romans context
In this section, I will now provide a thorough exposition of the topic of death, as it relates to 5:12, in Paul’s theological writings to the churches in Rome.
Background
Though Romans is packed with theology, Paul’s reason for writing the letter was primarily to act as a peacemaker between the Jewish and Gentile believers in the Roman churches.
On his missionary journeys, Paul’s habit was to first approach the Jewish synagogues and preach to their congregations, then to expand his approach to gentiles in the community. Where did the new believers then meet together? The practice of Jewish believers in Jerusalem was to continue their normal Sabbath activities in the synagogues alongside non-Messianic Jews, then at dusk, at the close of Shabbat, the Messianics would adjourn to private homes to meet and fellowship together until well into the night.
This same practice was likely followed in the Diaspora as well, with gentile believers joining at homes after the synagogues closed for the night. This was of course a great demonstration of the intercultural tolerance demanded by Paul.
[Note: Since “the 7th day of the week” gave way to “the 1st day of the week” at dusk, I believe that this evening adjournment is what truly led to the Christian custom of meeting on Sundays.]
In AD 49, Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from the City of Rome, including Messianic believers. When the expulsion was ended after Claudius’ death in AD 54, two to four years before Paul’s letter, those Jews who returned found that Gentile believers had taken over their synagogues, and the result was bad blood between the returning Messianic Jews and the gentile usurpers.
Outline
That background explains, I think, why the bulk of the letter consisted of round after round of explanation and exhortation to first one, then the other, component of the Church.
In broad strokes, I personally outline Romans as follows:
Greetings and personal notes, 1:1–15.
A unifying theology of righteousness through faith, 1:16–8:39.
Paul’s burden for Israel, 9:1–11:11.
Gentiles and Jews together, 11:12–36.
Christian ethics for all, 12:1–15:13.
Paul’s closing statements, 15:14–16:27.
A focus on the theology
In Romans 1:16–8:39, Paul’s emphasis was on theology, in particular the roles of faith and Torah obedience in the quest for righteousness as required by God in the united Church.
In order to stay within the limited scope of this paper, I will concentrate here on Paul’s discussions of death, in order to set a context for 5:12.
Literal death in Romans 1–4
In the following passage, Paul is speaking of the faith of Abraham who, despite being an old man and “as good as dead”, maintained his strong faith in God, who not only creates the body, but gives it life. Both of these references to death are forms of nekros, and it seems reasonable to assume that they are referring either strictly or primarily to physical death; however, in my judgement they don’t help set the context of 5:12.
17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead[nekros] and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body [soma], which was as good as dead[nekroó], (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. — Romans 4:17-19 (ESV) emphasis mine
In 4:24 (“him who raised from the dead [nekros] Jesus our Lord”,) and 5:10 (“we were reconciled to God by the death [thanatos] of his Son”), the subject is the death and resurrection of Jesus, which again I think is not terribly helpful in setting the context for death in the following chapters.
Death and life in Romans 5:1–11
Beginning in chapter 5, the emphasis changes from justification to sanctification and the peace that comes with it.
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. — Romans 5:1 (ESV)
“Death” terms now begin to appear more frequently in the text.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died [apothnéskó] for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die [apothnéskó] for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die [apothnéskó]— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died [apothnéskó] for us. — Romans 5:6-8 (ESV)
These references to death all speak of Jesus’ crucifixion, which was of course very much a literal death. The same applies in verse 10:
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death [thanatos] of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life[zóé]. — Romans 5:10 (ESV)
A key question now arises: If thanatos and zóé refer to literal, physical death and life in 5:10, as I think we all would agree, then is this verse speaking of physical salvation of our bodies, or of spiritual “salvation of our souls”?
“Saved” in verse 10 is σῴζω (sózó, pronounced sózó), a verb meaning (per Thayer’s), either (a) to save, to keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction; or (b) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment, i.e., to make one a partaker of the salvation by Christ.
Once again, I think that most of my readers would agree that (b) is the sense meant in verse 10.
Up to here in Paul’s theological discourse, the subject has been primarily Jesus’ physical death and subsequent resurrection as the basis for our faith, and thus our spiritual salvation (justification, sanctification, and later glorification).
I would contend, then, that 10 and 11 focus the context for what follows in verse 12:
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 Therefore, … — Romans 5:10-12a (ESV)
I will show below that the text following 5:12 further solidifies this context.
Death and life in Romans 5:13–21
The remainder of chapter 5 continues the contrast between death through Adam and life through Jesus and returns the emphasis back to the overall theme of the letter: explaining how faith and salvation can function in a Church composed of both Jews and gentiles.
Here, Paul says that, yes, we have been two separate peoples under separate spiritual economies since the time of Abraham, and we will remain so in most respects, but we all have a common ancestor in Adam. Within the Church, we must recognize that both peoples are infected with the sin nature of Adam because of his sin, but now both have been united by our faith in the salvation brought by Jesus.
Key death phrases in this section are:
14 … death [thanatos] reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 … if many died [apothnéskó] through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 … For the judgment [krima] following one trespass brought condemnation [katakrima], but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death [thanatos] reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life [zóé] through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation [katakrima] for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. … 21 so that, as sin reigned in death [thanatos], grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Romans 5:14-21 (ESV)
Surely all of that death, judgement, redemption and life terminology must be speaking only of the spiritual state!
A different metaphor in Romans 6–7
Here Paul shifts the conversation about death. In this section, “death” is neither physical death nor spiritual death, but rather he uses the metaphor of “putting to death”, or overcoming, the evil inclinations brought on by our sinful natures. I discussed this recently in great detail in Yetzer, Yotzer and “The Law” in Romans 7:1–6
Romans 8
In this chapter, Paul closes out the discussion that fills the first half of the letter.
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Yeshua [the Torah written on our hearts] has set you free from the law of sin and death [the fleshly “evil inclination”]. — Romans 8:1-2 (TLV) comment mine
“Therefore” in 8:1 harks back to all that came before, but in particular to 7:4, discussed in the previous article:
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you also were made dead to the Torah through the body of Messiah, so that you might be joined to another—the One who was raised from the dead—in order that we might bear fruit for God. — Romans 7:4 (TLV)
By now, I hope that most of you will agree that Paul’s discussion of theology is primarily about the spiritual results of sin, not about the mortality of the body.
Interpreting Romans 5:10–14
Here, then, is my interpretation of Romans 5:12 in its closest context:
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death [thanatos] through sin, and so death [thanatos] spread to all men because all sinned … — Romans 5:10–12 (ESV)
For if while we were enemies — While we, as Jew or gentile, were in opposition to God and Torah.
We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son — We were brought back into a close relationship (which was lost when we first sinned) with God on be basis of Jesus’ crucifixion.
Much more, now that we are reconciled — More importantly, now that that relationship has been restored.
Shall we be saved by his life. — I discussed the meaning of salvation when I analyzed this verse above, taking Thayer’s definition, “to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment, i.e., to make one a partaker of the salvation by Christ.”
More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. — We celebrate the fact that we have been brought into fellowship with God, the Father.
Therefore—because of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection by which we have been reconciled to God.
Just as—in the same fashion as.
Sin came into the world through one man—Sin came into existence on earth. By disobeying God in the matter of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve brought the curse on mankind and on the ground that he depends on.
And death through sin—this will require discussion of two issues:
The contextual discussion above addresses the question of whether this “death” (thanatos) is spiritual death only, or whether it includes any physical component at all. Based on we’ve seen in chapters 1–8, and especially 5:10–11, I can only conclude that death here is referring only to spiritual death.
We also have to determine whether the remainder of verse 12 limits this death to mankind only, or if animals and other things are included.
And so death spread to all men because all sinned—to my mind, the grammar here limits death due to sin to the sinners themselves.
But let’s consider the curses themselves…
Death in Eden
The sin in Eden
The word “die” occurs 3 times in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17; 3:3,4). In each case, it is a grammatical variation of the Hebrew muwth. As expected, the Greek Septuagint (LXX, a 2nd century BC Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translates each of these three occurrences using apothnéskó, which in this case imparts no new information.
What does the text tell us? In Gen 2:17 God’s words were, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Eve’s flawed retelling of this to the Serpent was, “‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” The Serpent’s response was, “You will not surely die.”
Are we to take this as a discussion of physical death, spiritual death, or perhaps both? That’s a tough question to some since it is not addressed specifically.
If the answer is “physical“, then did God lie and the Serpent tell the truth? That, of course, is not tenable unless the word “day” (from the root,יוֹם, yom) means something other than a literal day. In an Ancient Near East (ANE) context, that is certainly a possibility, but it’s making an unprovable assumption, and it’s a risky interpretation in the context of Genesis 1–3. If you require Genesis 1 to be using the word, day, literally for the creation days, then in Genesis 2–3, the same word should probably have the same meaning.
“Both” might mean that both were telling half-truths, which raises the same troubling issues.
If the answer is “spiritual“, then God was truthful, and the Serpent a liar. I’ll go with this one!
But, for the purpose of this post, I have to ask how Adam and Eve could have had any comprehension of either physical or spiritual death if there had been no death at all on earth up to that point. Any attempts to explain that away can only be speculative. Lacking data, then speculation is fine, but dogmatism is not.
Since Adam’s physical death didn’t come until 930 years later, I feel personally confident in speculating that the death promised to him was spiritual only, though there is no record that either God or the Serpent explained that to him or Eve. I further speculate that he was not created immortal but would have lived forever from the fruit of the Tree of Life, as stated in gen 3:22.
The curses of Eden
The Serpent
According to Genesis 3:14–15, the Serpent was cursed for his own sin.
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed more than any livestock and more than any wild animal. You will move on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life.
15 I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. — Genesis 3:14-15 (CSB17)
Angelic beings were created to oversee the cosmos, much like mankind was created to manage Earth. The Bible reports that angels are rebellious just like humans, but I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that the angels and humankind are judged under the same set of rules, or that other angels were included in the Serpent’s curse.
In fact, it’s unclear just what exactly the serpent was, and what its relation was to Satan. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 state that it was Satan, but that could mean that Satan “possessed” a member of an animal family. “On your belly you shall go” does indeed sound like snake, but “the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made”doesn’t sound snakish at all, so who knows?
It’s unclear to me why God would have cursed all snakes because of the perfidy of one, and the part of the curse recorded in verse 15 certainly does not pertain to snakes! Well, I’m satisfied not knowing the unknowable!
The Woman
Eve’s curse is recorded in Genesis 3:16. It mentions only pain in childbearing and relational difficulties between husband and wife. From the wording, it seems that childbearing was already painful, so this just made it more so. If it was painful, could it also have been perilous?
He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children with painful effort. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you. — Genesis 3:16 (CSB17)
Adam
Adam’s curse is found in Genesis 3:17–19. Strictly speaking, Adam wasn’t cursed at all, directly. What the text says is, “cursed is the ground because of you”. What that curse does, though, is to set up an enmity of sorts between Adam and his environment, which certainly would be considered a curse.
17 And he said to the man, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: The ground is cursed because of you. You will eat from it by means of painful labor all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return to the ground, since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust.” — Genesis 3:17-19 (CSB17)
Alternatively, it may be that Adam’s own curse is that discussed above, plus
22 The LORD God said, “Since the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove the man out and stationed the cherubim and the flaming, whirling sword east of the garden of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life. — Genesis 3:22-24 (CSB17)
I see no Biblical indication, in Genesis 3 or elsewhere, that animals, plants, or the extraterrestrial cosmos were cursed for man’s sin. Certainly, the flora, fauna and ecology of earth are greatly affected by man’s curse. That doesn’t mean that it had any effect on their mortality, other than to make life harder.“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28 (ESV)
Good and Very Good
Many Young Earth Creationists claim that there could not possibly have been death before the fall because during the creation week, at the end of every day God looked at what He had done that day and pronounced it “good.” At the end of the sixth day, as a matter of fact, it was “very good.”
Now how, they ask, can anything be good or very good if it can die? Well, gosh… How does any fallen human being presume to know what God considers to be good? It’s His design, so by definition, it is good!
Let’s check the language:
טוֹב (tov, pronounced tove) This can be adjective, verb, or noun, and it means … hang onto you hats … good, pleasant, agreeable, beneficial, beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, fair, favor, fine, glad, goodly, graciously, joyful, kindly, loving, merry, pleasant, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, well-favored. And all of these meanings are subjective! Good luck agreeing on the shading!
מְאֹד (m`od pronounced meh-ODE) This is an adjective meaning very, exceedingly, much, greatly.
Really, there’s not much help there. The word is subjective.
From my engineering perspective, a good design is one that does what the specs required, does what it was designed it to do, and does it elegantly.
Philosophical bias
In my opinion…
The universe is not a static artwork hanging on a wall. It’s a living, dynamic organism, designed by God to mature and blossom with little interference, to showcase His majesty, and to house and employ His angelic host, the first “generation” of His children, the B’nai Elohim, or Sons of God (Genesis 6:2–4).
And later, after reaching a suitable degree of maturity and elegance, a Garden was planted on one planet to house and nurture the second generation of His children, humanity.
Elegantly!
Nature vs Eternity
Development and growth per God’s blueprint demand movement, change, and thermodynamic flow. Exchange and equilibrium. Birth and death. This is true for the universe as a whole, for galaxies, stars and star systems, and for planets.
Angels are like humans in that they image God, they answer to Him, they interact with Him, they have freewill and thus can sin, and God has given them meaningful work to do.
They are unlike humans in that they have no physical bodies that are inherently vulnerable to mishap, wear and tear, and mischief. They don’t give birth, and they don’t die, and they aren’t influenced by hormones. However, when they have temporarily taken on human form, they have sometimes gotten into big trouble.
In the Eternal State, I believe human bodies will be secondary. In the meantime, they are the shell we are confined to. Spirits are immortal, bodies are not. By their nature, bodies are vulnerable. With God’s protection or the Tree of Life, they can be maintained indefinitely, but without it, death is inevitable.
Fecundity
The first commandment given to humans was,
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28 (ESV)
Where there is fecundity, there has to be death. Neither animals nor humans can give birth indefinitely without eventually running out of space and resources. We value ecosystems and our environment. Ecology, God’s creation, demands cycles of life and death to maintain the health and balance of the planet.
Natural Life
I have in front of me paper after paper and article after article featuring Henry Morris’ grandson and many of his colleagues repeating over and over again that “death is an insult”, and “if God designed death into creation, then He is a monster”, and “death is wasteful and cruel.” This is all nonsense to me.
Isaiah described the Olam Haba (world to come) in the imprecise way of prophecy, particularly poetic prophecy. As sometimes happens, he confused the Millennium with the Eternal State, as described in Revelation. Under the topic, “new heavens and new earth” (65:17), the following passage describes what I believe life will be like in the Millennium, and perhaps what it was designed to be like in Eden:
20 No more will babies die in infancy, no more will an old man die short of his days — he who dies at a hundred will be thought young, and at less than a hundred thought cursed. 21 They will build houses and live in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They will not build and others live there, they will not plant and others eat; for the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, and my chosen will themselves enjoy the use of what they make. 23 They will not toil in vain or raise children to be destroyed, for they are the seed blessed by ADONAI; and their offspring with them. 24 Before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion eat straw like an ox (but the serpent — its food will be dust). They will not hurt or destroy anywhere on my holy mountain,” — Isaiah 65:20-25 (CJB)
As for animals, verse 25 doesn’t promise that the wolf and the lamb will be immortal, or even that the lion or wolf will lose its predatory instincts, but only that wild animals will no longer plunder domestic herds.
Humans were created mortal but designed to live long and peaceful lives and to die content, like David in 1 Chronicles 29:28 (CJB), who “died, at a ripe old age, full of years, riches and honor.”
Having very recently completed a post about the Garden of Eden, I can’t resist the urge to talk briefly about what is, in my view, the central theological importance of Adam. Eve, too, but she’s sort of out of the context of my title.
I had planned for years to write about the location of the Garden. The rest of that previous article was kind of new to my thinking. I am out of step with much of Evangelical Christian tradition with respect to the first two chapters of Genesis but, though I am leaning toward Adam and Eve as a second “crop” of humans, created much later than the Genesis 1 humans, I consider that their literal existence in history is unquestionable, as is their role in salvation history.
Dr. John H. Walton, who I introduced to my readers in the previous post, suggests two key indicators he uses for determining when a Bible character with no historical provenance is most likely literal, rather than a literary device to convey an important lesson, as in a parable, for example. First, if the Scriptures present a genealogy of descendants, then the character is probably real. Second, if the character’s existence is itself essential to establish a theological or exegetical proof, then the character had better be real or your belief system needs to be reexamined. Adam and Eve meet both of those criteria for me.
Obviously, there is a long genealogy, which incidentally fits very well with key dates in history if you accept the long lives attributed to the earliest descendants.
A Genealogy of Adam and Eve, opbm.net.
The Theological Proof
But more importantly, there is a vital soteriological link between Adam and Jesus.
We hear over and over about the temptation of Adam, but the temptation of Jesus is, in my opinion, the most underappreciated and neglected event in the Bible. The Garden is where humanity stumbled. The Wilderness is where Jesus established His credentials to pick us up again.
Adam
In Genesis 3, we’re all familiar with the Temptation:
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. — Genesis 3:4-6 (ESV) emphasis added
The first three underlines above, most of you will recognize, are the three common classes of temptation. In order, “the lust of the flesh”, “the lust of the eyes”, and “the pride of life” as enumerated by John:
[16] For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. — 1 John 2:16 (KJV)
I also underlined the phrase pointing out that it wasn’t just Eve being tempted. Adam was with her. The discussion was between Eve and the Serpent (נָחָשׁnâchâsh, a snake, from its hiss), but Adam was the senior human present, so I’m sure Eve glanced at him for confirmation before she reached out for the fruit. In the garden as in the military and industry, the buck stops at the top.
So, with the disobedience of one man, Adam, humankind following gained the propensity, and likely the capacity, to deliberately choose rebellion against God.
This is off topic, so it’s free of charge: Contrary to what many believe, I don’t think the “sin nature” is genetic. I think it is imprinted within the human spirit, the incorporeal part of a human. Jesus wasn’t without sin because He had no human father. He was without sin because He had a God nature alongside His human nature. He had no human father because His miraculous conception was a vital demonstration of His uniqueness.
Jesus
In order to qualify as a “the Second Adam”, Jesus had to succeed where the First Adam failed.
Jesus’ temptations almost certainly took place on one day—on Yom Kippur, Tishri 10, AD 26. This was on the final day of the Days of Awe, culminating the annual 40-day period during which Jews around the world fasted, prayed and abstained from Marriage and all other happy events as they considered their sins of the past year. On this day, the same tempter and the same temptations came to Jesus in the wilderness and in Jerusalem.
The lust of the flesh:
3 The Adversary said to him, “If you are the Son of God, order this stone to become bread.” 4 Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” — Luke 4:3-4 (CJB)
The lust of the eyes:
5 The Adversary took him up, showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world, 6 and said to him, “I will give you all this power and glory. It has been handed over to me, and I can give it to whomever I choose. 7 So if you will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Worship ADONAI your God and serve him only.’” — Luke 4:5-8 (CJB)
The pride of life:
[9] Then he [the devil] took him to Yerushalayim, set him on the highest point [Greek pterugion, literally, a “wing” or “turret”] of the Temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, jump from here! [10] For the Tanakh [Old Testament] says [Psalm 91:11–12],
‘He will order his angels to be responsible for you and to protect you. [11] They will support you with their hands, so that you will not hurt your feet on the stones.’”
[12] Yeshua [Jesus] answered him, “It also says, ‘Do not put ADONAI your God to the test.’” [13] When the Adversary [Greek diabolos, literally, “accuser”] had ended all his testings, he let him alone until an opportune time. —Luke 4:9–13 (CJB)
Matthew presents a different order for the temptation, which is not a problem because chronological order was not strictly important in the literature of the day. I’m certain that “pride” was last in real time, as listed by Luke. Why? Because pride is the deadliest of sins, and because this temptation put Him where failure would have been witnessed by thousands of Jews…
On the Pinnacle of the Temple, on Yom Kippur, the one day when the Plaza below the Temple Mount, the Ophel, and the City of David would be packed with visitors. If Satan, “the Serpent of Old”, had succeeded with this final temptation, all would have seen Jesus’ rescue, and His ministry would have been over with before it started.
Conclusion
All the major events of Jesus’ life, starting with His birth, were tied to the important Feast days. It was no accident that He chose to kick off His earthly ministry with the people He came to save by joining them during the Feast dedicated to prayer and repentance. Everything He did during the 40 days was designed to demonstrate to them and to us that He was, Himself, a righteous Jew and endorsed by the Holy Spirit.
Could His mission have been accomplished without the contrast of a literal Adam in a literal Garden? Well, He’s God, so of course He could, but my observation is that God delights in symmetry and order as well as poetry and symbolism. A metaphorical Adam would not reduce my faith, but I am confident that Genesis 2 and 3 record historical events.
Aside from inevitable passing references here and in future posts, I think I’m finally done with banging a drum over Genesis 1. I view verse 1 as the definitive, all-important statement by God that He is the uncreated, everlasting creator of all that exists.(see Gen 1:2 through 2:3), I think, are a polemic against the pervasive pagan claims of the surrounding cultures and of the Israelites, who at the time of writing were migrating from one pagan enclave (Egypt) to another (Canaan). In this post, I want to Move on to chapter 2, verses 4 and following.
I absolutely believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place, Adam and Eve were two real people, and even though there are some language issues to deal with, the story related is real and vital, and the time frame geologically recent, i.e., 6,000 (Ussher) to 10,000 (Whitcomb, if the genealogies skip some generations) years ago.
The first order of business is to tell you where I think the Garden was.
Most commentators seem to favor one of two general regions for the Garden: either northern or southern Mesopotamia, though proposals exist for locations surrounding the Arabian subcontinent and in eastern Africa. I’ve seen one suggestion that Eden lies at the bottom of the Red Sea, and another that puts it in the Indian Ocean.
Some proposed locations for Eden, per Babylon Rising.
Northern Mesopotamian versions tend to favor Eastern Turkey/Armenia, since (a) there is a perception that Shinar is in that area, based on Genesis 11:2 (ESV): “And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there”; and (b) the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate in that general vicinity.
Possible Mesopotamian locations, per Blue Letter Bible.
Personally, I have favored a southern Iraq location for years, since obtaining a copy of an unpublished book titled, simply, Eden, by a late pastor named David J. Gibson, who understood that rivers don’t divide flowing downstream as described in Genesis 2:10 (ESV), “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.” Gibson suggested, and I agree with him, that this verse should be interpreted from the perspective of an observer within the Garden gazing out at four rivers converging as they entered the Garden.
This is awkward language for us, but not necessarily for Moses in antiquity, writing in Hebrew. Consider that in Genesis 2:8 (ESV), “the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east”. This implies to me that the four rivers converged in the western part of Eden before flowing through the Garden, which was planted in the eastern part.
This makes sense, and from a hydrodynamics standpoint, it is the only interpretation that makes sense. Tributaries converge, they don’t diverge. If, for some reason, a river splits to flow around an obstruction or a sandbar, it will always come back together downstream nearby. If, for some reason, it splits to flow down two or more separate drainage basins, an unstable pattern results. One path will erode more quickly than the other(s), and eventually that path will “steal” all the flow from the other(s).
The only exception from that rule is the case of delta flow, but deltas aren’t formed by erosion, they’re formed by deposition of silt carried downstream in the water. As a river flows onto a plain and slows down, turbulence decreases, and silt falls out of suspension and stays more or less where it drops. Without sufficient turbulence to pick it up again, there is just enough energy available to keep the channels open.
Large deltas usually form at the mouth of a river where water leaving the delta’s channels flows into the sea or a lake. Sometimes deltas form inland, usually where a mountain stream empties onto a plain. The water from an inland delta will either evaporate, sink into the substrate, or collect into a single stream or a lake. Two examples are shown below.
The Inner Niger Delta, in Mali, is a wetland that floods during the rainy season in the Guinean Highlands, to the southwest. The delta formed where the topography flattens for 250 miles before spilling downwards again to the east.The Okavango Delta is formed by seasonal flooding form the Angola Highlands, where the Okavango River course flattens and slows in Botswana. Unlike the Inner Niger, this delta has no outlet.Pishon ? The deltaic terminal of Wadi Al-Batin. From Ali Al-Dousari on Researchgate
Genesis 2:10 would make total sense if the four “rivers” were delta channels, but the naming of those four rivers in verses 11–14 belies that possibility. Indeed, in my opinion the naming of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers conclusively fixes the location of the Garden in southern Iraq.
What about the other two rivers named?
The Pishon is fairly well defined because verse 11 says that it “flowed around the whole land of Havilah.” Havilah was a son of Cush who settled in what today is northwest Arabia. 1 Samuel 15:7 (ESV) defines that location: “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt.” “Flowed around” could be literal (I found a map showing the Pishon as an ocean current flowing counterclockwise around the entire Arabian subcontinent), but more likely it simply means that it flowed through and provided water for Havilah. Gibson equated the Pishon with Arabia’s Wadi Al-Batin, an ancient and now-dry river and delta system flowing northeast through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the Tigris/Euphrates valley. I think he was right.
Gihon? Karun River, Wikipedia
As for the Gihon River that “flowed around the whole land of Cush” (verse 13), I would equate that with the Karun River, flowing out of Iran, through the ancient land of the Elamites.
I think that Christian commentators are thrown off by an assumption that “Cush” refers only to the region around Ethiopia and Somalia. My view is that Cush (a son of Ham) and his descendants settled large regions of Asia, as well as the upper Nile area. They apparently mixed with the Canaanites in the Lavant, and Nimrod, a son of Cush, was described in Genesis 10 as “9a mighty hunter before ADONAI. … 10His kingdom began with Bavel, Erekh, Akkad and Kalneh, in the land of Shin‘ar.” These abodes of Nimrod are all lands of southern Mesopotamia. Nimrod was, I’m convinced, none other than Sargon of Akkad, the world’s first great emperor. Elam and Asshur were Semites, but Cush may have extended into the Steppes alongside Shem (see Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe, 2023, by Douglas Petrovich).
It’s admittedly a stretch, but I have wondered if perhaps the ancient Kushan Empire, spanning the central Asian “stans” might have gotten its name from Cush/Kush. If so, then the influence of Cush stretched all the way to the Xiongnu tribe, north of the Yellow River, because the peoples who started the Kushan Empire, centered around Afghanistan, where refugees from the Xiongnu.
Putting all this together, I think that the following map states the case for Eden in southern Iraq:
What about the placing of Shinar in Turkey? I agree with the predominant view that Shinar is the area once occupied by Sumer, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It’s not hard to explain away migration “from the east.” I suspect that waters from the Great Flood took years to retreat from low-lying areas, so descendants of Noah returning to their homeland in Shinar would have initially moved southeast along the spine of the Zagros Mountains. Saying that Shinar is west of Ararat because they entered from the east is analogous to assuming I live west of my church because I (sometimes) approach it from the west. The full story on that is that I live to the southeast and occasionally take a circuitous route along the freeway.
Post-flood migrations from Ararat to Shinar. From Google Earth. Annotations by Ron Thompson.
The creation passage and the Garden passage are separated by verse 2:4 (see below).
There seem to be contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as traditionally understood. Because I believe Scripture is inerrant, but tradition is not, I inevitably try to let the former inform the latter.
Here are the relevant passages that I wish to discuss now:
[11] And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. [12] The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. …
[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
—Genesis 1:11–13,26–29 (ESV)
and
[4b] …in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. [5] When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, [6] and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— [7] then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. [8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. [9] And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. …
[15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. …
[18] Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” [19] Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. [20] The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. [21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. [22] And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. [23] Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
—Genesis 2:4b–9,15,18–23 (ESV)
Almost all conservative Evangelicals believe that Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and Eve: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” But Scripture never actually states that these are Adam and Eve!
I have suggested in past posts that Christians should be willing to consider alternatives where erroneous understandings might exist in uninspired translations and interpretations, but not in inspired autographs(the original manuscripts as prepared by the human authors). When comparing these passages, we must account for apparent contradictions and ambiguities.
John H. Walton, a conservative Old Testament scholar with Moody Bible Institute and later with Wheaton College, has proposed alternative understandings of these passages, suggesting that chapter 1 describes one human creation event, and chapter 2 a separate creation of just Adam and Eve. He bases this idea on several observations, including:
There are obvious contradictions in the reported order of the creation events (see below).
The descriptions of each category of creation in chapter 1, including humankind, gives the impression that a significant population of every species were created. Creation of just 2 humans in Genesis 1 would be a breaking of the pattern.
Verse 4 is a “toledah” (Hebrew for “generations”), which is a fragment of Scripture used to separate two “chapters”, or thematic passages, of Genesis.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. —Genesis 2:4 (ESV)
Walton presents the following table to show how other toledoth (plural) relate to material preceding and following them:
— Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2017.
In the table, all of the cases marked as “sequel” separate events in the past from events in the future.
The three labeled “recursive” indicate cases where one individual or family is followed, then the timeline is reset to follow another. In these cases, there may be chronological overlap, but no detail added to the first.
In the single case labeled “parallel/sequel” Cain is followed, then the timeline reset to Adam; then a toledah introduces parallel coverage of Seth.
There is no precedent in the ten cases enumerated for a toledah introducing an expanded account of the same thing previously covered. This is not definitive proof, but it is suggestive.
First, “creation” in verse 27 is the Hebrew word בָּרָא (bara‘, which means ex nihilo creation, or creation from nothing at all). In contrast, the Genesis 2 description is יָצַר (yatsar, which means to form something specifically by molding some constituent material into a shape, i.e., as a potter forming something in clay). The potter imagery is consistent with forming Adam “of dust from the ground”. “Dust”, here is Hebrew עָפָר, (‘afar), meaning things like “dry soil”, “loose earth”, “rubble”, or even “ashes”. None of these is clay, and none of them alone can be worked by a potter, but the intended image is of the detritus of death. More likely, it simply refers to the familiar elements on the periodic table, pasted by God into organic molecules.
Second, and more telling, we appear to have a serious contradiction regarding the creation of beasts of the field and birds of the heavens.
The sequence as written in Genesis 2 is (a) God formed Adam and gave him life; (b) God planted a garden on the east side of Eden; (c) God placed Adam in that garden; (d) God caused plants to grow from the ground; (e) God gave Adam his mission statement; (g) from the ground, God “formed” (yatsar) the land and air creatures; (h) Adam named the creatures; and finally (i) God formed Eve from Adam’s rib.
The serious contradiction here is that:
in chapter 1, air creatures are created on day 5 and land creatures on day 6, both of these prior to the creation of man on day 6.
In chapter 2, Adam (though not Eve) was created on or after day 6 while both the air and land creatures were created later.
The ESV translation above follows NIV in trying to resolve the problem by hedging on the language in 2:19. I can’t find any support for “Now the LORD God had formed“. This translation certainly does leave room for saying, “Oh, this isn’t where he forms them, that was already done.” But the correct translation seems to be “And out of the ground the LORD God formed.” Almost every translation words it this way, and even ESV includes that as a footnote. NIV is notorious for paraphrasing Scripture to make it say what they think it should say. I take this passage to mean that God formed new animals in the garden in addition to those that existed—possibly just new individuals, not new species.
I don’t see a clear, fair, and decisive path to resolving this contradiction.
On the other hand, if Genesis 2 is subsequent to Genesis 1 rather than a retelling, the garden theoretically becomes sacred space—a prototype tabernacle—and Adam’s race a priesthood.
While the concept that Adam and Eve’s creation at a time when earth was already populated by humans may be startling, it answers more questions than it raises. It gives Cain a wife without requiring biologically harmful incest. It reveals who it was who Cain thought might kill him. It answers the question, where did all the people come from to populate the city that Cain founded.
By the way, what was that city? Depending on how you define the term, it may have been Uruk, shown on the map above with the four rivers of Eden. Uruk was founded about 6,000 years ago, which fits very nicely with the picture I’m painting here.
You may say, “But the Bible teaches we’re all descended from Adam!” Yes, it does, and since Noah was descended from Adam, and we’re descended from Noah, then where’s the problem? The other humans all perished in the Flood.
Are we also descended from the pre-Garden people? I don’t know. Perhaps no pre-Garden genes were in the chromosomes of Noah or Mrs. Noah. But would it have mattered if there was some mixing? I don’t think it matters if Noah had non-Adamic genes mixed in, any more than it matters that Jesus had genes not contributed by Judah or King David. Mitochondrial DNA shows that all humans today have a common “mother” and Y-chromosomal analysis shows a common “father”, but both of those are way too late to have been Mr. or Mrs. Noah’s. Due to the nature of genetic inheritance, it will never be possible to trace back that far.
The Genesis 1 creation, whether it was Adam or not, was created in the image of God. They, too, were righteous or sinful, saved or unsaved. The difference is that they had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, so they were presumably innocent in the same way as Adam and Eve before the fall.
But wait! you say. That means that they were immortal! No, it doesn’t. Were Adam and Eve immortal before the fall? I think “you will surely die” is talking about spiritual death, not physical. Maybe they were immortal, but if so, why was there a Tree of Life in the Garden?
Was death even possible, theologically, before the fall? That’s way too big a subject to take on here, in this post. I’ll eventually write about it. It’s a key question, since part of the reason some Christians shun fossil evidence is that they think it’s a violation of Scripture for animals to have died pre-fall. Obviously, I believe death was possible before the fall, but I owe you some analysis to justify my belief.
Then, there’s the biggest question of all. I’ve been telling you that the 7-day creation story is a polemic and not literally true as written. What about Adam and Eve, and the Garden? Well, that’s a whole ‘nother story. From Genesis 2 on out, there is way too much specificity for me to doubt. I mean, we have the begats, for crying out loud, and they are way too believable to dismiss.
I want to address just a few issues here that may seem confusing.
On the day that the LORD God made earth and heavens, no shrub of the field being yet on the earth and no plant of the field yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused rain to fall on the earth and there was no human to till the soil, and wetness would well from the earth to water all the surface of the soil… —Genesis 2:4b–6 (Alter)
The first phrase above, ending “made earth and heavens”, bookends the Genesis 1 story, which begins with “In the beginning … heavens and earth”. That makes it more likely that the phrase is part of the toledah, packaging the entire process—”the day that the LORD God made the earth and heavens.” Most of you take this “day” as seven literal 24-hour days—I take it to mean the entire 13.8-billion-year period from the Big Bang to the formation of Adam.
The term “LORD God” here is the Hebrew “YHVH Elohim“, the first occurrence in Scripture of God’s covenant name.
In 2:5 we are told that, before God created Adam or planted the Garden, there was as yet no “brush of the field”, i.e., no wild vegetation, in the land (the Garden). Paleontology suggests that Homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, but for most of that time they were strictly hunter-gatherers. Agriculture doesn’t appear until around 10,000 years ago, and it didn’t predominate until around 6,000 years ago. Domestication of livestock began during that same period. Given some flexibility in dating by means of Biblical genealogies, it is entirely realistic to date Genesis 2 somewhere in that 6-to-10,000-year time frame, and thus to consider that Genesis 2:5 implies that both herding (hunting) and farming (gathering) were inaugurated in the Garden.